“The conspirators, pacifists of the malignant type who are associated with anarchistic societies, are not of the nation. They have no right to be accounted as citizens of this Republic. They care nothing for it. They are termed pro-German, but that is more honor than they deserve. People of their kind lack the character and the mind to be faithful for long to any cause, however bad.”

* * *

That is the language in which the New York Times exulted in an editorial on the prospect of the passage of what became known as the Espionage Act. It was issued in 1917, two weeks before the measure became law, an event the Times hoped, would mean that the “punishment of the worst of them” (it was referring to draft dodgers) “will become more severe.”

The tirade was brought to mind by the Gray Lady’s editorial complaining that the Obama administration tried — under the same Espionage Act — to get a sentence of 20 years for a CIA officer who’d leaked secrets to a Times reporter. It’s not our purpose here to suggest that 20 years — or even the three that the judge handed down — is the right sentence. It is our purpose to suggest that the Times reacts one way when we’re in a serious war and another when it is its own ox, once removed, that is being gored.

The Times is talking about a law signed by Woodrow Wilson as part of the legal arsenal we were building in respect of our entry into World War I. Where once the Times couldn’t wait to start using the Espionage Act in a serious way, even against the lowliest draft dodgers, now it writes off the Espionage Act as a “century-old law intended for Communist spies.” Our own view is that the Espionage Act is on the books for a reason and needs to be vigorously enforced, particularly when our country is facing as crafty as that which is levying war against us today.